1. Introduction
ollowing the prevalence of COVID-19 and quarantine, the requirement to observe safety and hygiene during this period caused various effects on the psychological and social aspects of society. Since, people with different personality traits have shown different behaviors for safety attentions during the quarantine, the present study aimed to examine and test a model of personality and cognitive antecedents of health considerations COVID-19.
2. Methods
A sample of 220 people was evaluated online and through social networks. Research questionnaires were answered in a self-report manner at regular intervals. First, the descriptive findings related to the variables and then the findings related to the hypothetical model were examined. Data analysis began with various preliminary analyzes (Mean, Standard Deviation, Pearson zero-order correlations) to gain an initial insight into the data. Also, the proposed model was evaluated through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) through AMOS V. 23 and SPSS V. 23 software. To test the indirect relationships bootstrap procedure by Preacher and Hayes (2008) was used [26].
3. Results
In terms of demographic characteristics, 47% of the sample were male, 53% female, 52% married, and 48% were single. In addition, in terms of education, 22.4% were under diploma, 35.3% had a master’s degree, and 42.4% had a higher degree. Also, the minimum age of participants was 25 and the maximum age was 65 years. Table 1 shows the statistical indices of Mean±SD, and the correlation coefficient between the variables. 



As shown, the correlation coefficient between all variables (except for the relationship between neuroticism and health attitudes and health behavior) are all significant at the level of P≤0.01 and P≤0.05.
Before analyzing the data related to the hypotheses, they were examined to ensure that the data of this study estimate the underlying assumptions of the Structural Equation Model (SEM). In this study, two assumptions including the normality of data distribution and the absence of multiple alignments were examined. The skewness and Kurtosis coefficients of the variables were less than 3 and 10, respectively, which indicates that the distribution of variables in this study is normal. Also, the tolerance and variance enhancement statistics for any of the variables were not less than 0.1 and greater than 10, respectively. Therefore, no multiple alignments were found between the predictor variables of this study. 
In order to evaluate the proposed model, the Structural Equation Model was used. The fit of the proposed model was used based on a combination of fit criteria to determine the adequacy of the proposed model to fit the data. The fit of the proposed model with the data based on fitness indicators as absolute fitness index is reported in Table 2. 



Table 2 shows the proposed model with indicators such as RMSEA (0.057), IFI (0.85) which indicates the optimal fit of the model. The results showed that the designed model had good fit indicators. Also, these results show that the scales involved in this study have structural validity; therefore, the direct and indirect effects of variables can be investigated. Figure 1 shows the final research pattern. 
 
Table 3 shows the direct paths and their standard coefficients for the final research model. 



The path of the proposed model is significant at high levels. 
Apart from the relationship between agreeableness and internal locus of control(negative relationship), other relationships between variables were reported positive and direct. The Bootstrap method procedure by Preacher and Hayes (2008) was used to analyze the mediator hypotheses [26].
Table 4 shows the indirect paths and their standard coefficients in the final research model. 



As Table 4, all indirect path coefficients in the proposed model of the present study are significant. 
Table 4 shows the results of the Bootstrap analysis in Macro, Preacher, and Hayes(2008) for mediating relationships, neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness influence health behavior and health attitudes through the internal locus of control [26]. For investigation the mediating role of internal locus of control, was performed an analysis Between the two groups of women and men. The results showed that the men group, the internal locus of control is not mediating between neuroticism with health behavior; however, in the women group, the internal locus of control is not mediating between neuroticism with health attitude.
4. Conclusion and Conclusion
The conscientiousness trait activates the internal locus of control construct, and consequently, the person tends to observe health behaviors. In other words, the whole conscientiousness effect leads to the observance of hygienic principles through the intervention and occupation of the cognitive structure of the locus of control(full mediator). The simple relationship between neuroticism and the locus of control, which was reported -0.20(negative), changed to 0.23(positive) due to interaction with the conscientious variable. Explaining this change in signs and values indicates that a linear interpretation of the data cannot be provided. Therefore receiving coronavirus-related hygiene messages helps people observing hygiene.
It is suggested that psychologists consider the interactions between variables in lectures and sessions, as well as the content of training packages, to promote health attitudes and behaviors.
Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
All ethical principles are considered in this article. The participants were informed about the purpose of the research and its implementation stages. They were also assured about the confidentiality of their information and were free to leave the study whenever they wished, and if desired, the research results would be available to them.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Authors' contributions
Methodology, supervision, investigation, funding acquisition: Razieh Abedini Vellamdehi; Conceptualization, resources: All authors.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.


References

1. Shore DA. Today’s leadership lesson: Mind the wildlife and prepare for Tomorrow’s disruption. Journal of Health Communication. 2020; 25(4):301-2. [DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1749193]
2. World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV) situation report [Internet]. 2020 [Updated 2020 Febuary 15]. Availeble from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports
3. Alizadeh FS, Saffarinia M. [The prediction of mental health based on the anxiety and the social cohesion that caused by Coronavirus (Persian)]. Journal of Social Psychology Research. 2020; 9(36):129-141. http://www.socialpsychology.ir/article_105547.html?lang=en
4. Moghanibashi-Mansourieh A. Assessing the anxiety level of Iranian general population during COVID-19 outbreak. Asian Journal of Psychiatry. 2020; 51:102076. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102076] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Gielen AC, Sleet D. Application of behavior-change theories and methods to injury prevention. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2003; 25(1):65-76. [DOI:10.1093/epirev/mxg004] [PMID]
6. Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87(3):530-41. [DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530] [PMID]
7. Knipling RR, Boyle LN, Hickman JS, York JS, Daecher C, Olsen EC, et al. CTBSSP synthesis 4: Individual differences and the high-risk commercial driver. Washington DC.: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies; 2004.
8. McAdams DP, Olson BD. Personality development: Continuity and change over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology. 2010; 61:517-42. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100507] [PMID]
9. McKenna T, Pickens R. Personality characteristics of alcoholic children of alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1983; 44(4):688-700. [DOI:10.15288/jsa.1983.44.688] [PMID]
10. Rassart J, Luyckx K, Verdyck L, Mijnster T, Mark RE. Personality functioning in adults with refractory epilepsy and community adults: Implications for health-related quality of life. Epilepsy Research. 2020; 159:106251. [DOI:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.106251] [PMID]
11. Barrick MR, Mount MK, Judge TA. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2001; 9(1-2):9-30. [DOI:10.1111/1468-2389.00160]
12. Clarke S. Contrasting perceptual, attitudinal and dispositional approaches to accident involvement in the workplace. Safety Science. 2006; 44(6):537-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2005.12.001]
13. Hansen CP.(1989). A causal model of the relationship among accidents, biodata, personality, and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 81-90. [DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.81] [PMID]
14. Shaw L, Sichel HS. Accident proneness: Research in the occurrence, causation, and prevention of road accidents. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013.
15. Shokrnkon H, Bashlideh K, Haghighi J, Nisi AK. [Study of personality, cognitive, organizational and bio-physical variables as predictors of accidents in employees of a company in Ahvaz (Persian)]. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology. 2007; 4(1-2): 83-112. https://www.sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=212203
16. Clarke S, T Robertson I. A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2005; 78(3):355-76. [DOI:10.1348/096317905X26183]
17. Smith DI, Kirkham RW. Relationship between some personality characteristics and driving record. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1981; 20(4):229-31. [DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1981.tb00491.x]
18. Ulleberg P, Rundmo T. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science. 2003; 41(5):427-43. [DOI:10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00077-7]
19. Janicak CA. Predicting accidents at work with measures of locus of control and job hazards. Psychological Reports. 1996; 78(1):115-21. [DOI:10.2466/pr0.1996.78.1.115] [PMID]
20. Hunter DR. Development of an aviation safety locus of control scale. Safety. 2002; 7:160. [DOI:10.1037/t14554-000]
21. Martin RA, Lefcourt HM. Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983; 45(6):1313-24. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1313]
22. Araban SH, Arshadi N, Neisi AK, Beshlideh K. [Designing and testing a model of some individual, job and organizational variables as organizational welbeing preconditions in the employees of the National Company for Southern Oilfields (Persian)]. Journal of Psychological Achievements. 2015; 22(2):117-36. ^{https://psychac.scu.ac.ir/article_12311.html}
23. Kline RB. Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modeling in gifted research. In Thompson B, Subotnik RF, editors. Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness. New York: American Psychological Association; 2010. [DOI:10.1037/12079-007]
24. Nolan A, McCrory C, Moore P. Personality and preventive healthcare utilisation: Evidence from the Irish longitudinal study on ageing. Preventive Medicine. 2019; 120:107-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.029] [PMID]
25. Hampson SE. Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin”. Annual Review of Psychology. 2012; 63:315-39. [DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100419] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 2008; 40(3):879-91. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879